ReviewResuscitation plus2025
Leg-foot chest compressions: a scoping review.
Review in Resuscitation plus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Leg-foot chest compressions: a scoping review.Resuscitation plus · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: High-quality chest compressions (CCs) are vital for the return of spontaneous circulation. When hand CCs are difficult, leg-foot CCs may offer an alternative. We reviewed existing studies to describe the current evidence and identify gaps in the literature regarding this technique and its impact on outcomes. Methods: Between November and December 2024, we conducted a scoping review, searching eight databases, two proceedings (Resuscitation 2024 and the Resuscitation Science Symposium 2024), a trial register, animal guidelines, citations, and reference lists. We included studies on leg-foot CCs performed on humans, animals, or manikins by laypersons, healthcare professionals, pre-licensure students, or duty-to-respond laypersons. The intervention was leg-foot CCs; the comparison was standard hand CCs. Outcomes were feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness (rate, depth, recoil, location). Eligible designs included trials, non-randomised studies, case reports, and research letters with English abstracts from 1960 to 2024. Results: Out of 1173 records, we identified 14 studies comparing leg-foot and hand CCs, all using manikins, mostly from Western countries (11/14 studies). No human studies were identified. Twelve compared depth, nine rate, six recoil, and eight location. Most studies found no significant subgroup differences, though some reported better performance in heavier participants or when using a balance aid. Several studies observed differences in rate, recoil, and location overall. Of five studies assessing fatigue, two favoured leg-foot CCs, one was mixed, and two favoured hand CCs. Conclusion: No human studies of leg-foot CCS were identified. On manikins, leg-foot CCs are feasible and may reduce fatigue, but results vary. More research, including animal or human studies, is needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.